When To Flex U.s. Military Muscle?

In a few hours, Bill Clinton will become commander-in-chief of the world's only superpower, inheriting the ability to order military forces to respond to the troubles of a nasty, dangerous world.

Before the election, some worried that the young president, a war protester who never served in the military, might be more eager to pull the trigger than his predecessor, a veteran Navy pilot who experienced the horrors of war.

But it's not as if President Bush hasn't kept America's armed forces busy. In the last three years, he has sent troops into action in Panama, Iraq, Somalia, El Salvador, Liberia, the Philippines, Bangladesh and the former Soviet Union, to name a few. In some places, like Iraq, there was an overwhelming, awesome use of force; in others it was limited, or even humanitarian.

President-elect Clinton will assume responsibility for Bush's commitments in Iraq and Somalia, and, despite the end of the Cold War, there undoubtedly will be other crises over the next four years as well. Will the new administration intervene in all of them or none? What should determine when the president sends America's sons and daughters into harm's way?

In the twilight of his administration, Bush tried to lay out some principles for U.S. intervention. Critics contend he was merely trying to justify ex post facto his own record and secure his own place in history. But in recent speeches, Bush has offered some guidance, based on common sense and pragmatism, that Clinton would do well to harken to.

In December at Texas A&M University, Bush spoke of the "folly" of withdrawal and correctly urged the nation to lead and remain engaged in world affairs. As the world's pre-eminent military power and leading democracy, America can't retreat into an isolationist shell. With power comes responsibility.

Yet the U.S. cannot be the world's policeman either. No nation, however well endowed, can afford to send troops to the corners of the globe and leave them there on open-ended commitments. But there will be times when military force is called for.

In a speech at West Point earlier this month, Bush offered several principles to help make the decision. When diplomatic or economic policies have failed, force should be used only "where and when force can be effective," "where its application can be limited in scope and time" and "where the potential benefits jutify the potential costs and sacrifice."

Furthermore, when the criteria are met and force is justified, Bush said, it should be used with maximum international support and cooperation.

But even that doesn't go far enough. Every crisis shouldn't turn on whether the U.S. decides to use force; some may be ably handled by the United Nations or other collective security groupings like NATO.

It will fall to Clinton to strengthen the ability of the UN to keep the peace and deal with disasters like famines and floods. This eventually could entail earmarking some U.S. units as part of a standing UN rapid deployment force, with a command structure similar to the one that has worked well for NATO.

Such an arrangement would increase the scope of burden-sharing, while leaving Washington free to act alone when the circumstances are right.